Chariton courier. (Keytesville, Chariton County, Mo.) 1878-current, 1887-09-29

EOIroR REPUBLIc2N:-The con
struction placed upon the sixth sec
tion of Wood local option law, by its
opponents (with whom 1 obsery'
Senator Vest has taken poisition)
cannot, I think, be maintained upon
IT ason or authority.
The purpose of the law as express
ed in its title, is to prevent the evils
1 of intemperaBce by submitting The
question of prohibiting the sale oi
Intoxicating liquors to the qualified
voters.
The sixth section provides thai
upon the adoption of the law ''iI
shall not be lawful for any person
to directly or indirectly sell, give
away or barter in any manner what
ever any kind of intoxicating liquors
or beverage containing alcohol. .
The words s.gIve away" are evident
ly intended to prevent every possi-
BILE evasion of the law prohibiting
the sale of intoxicating liquors as q
beverage.
The ingenuity Of those engaged in
the liquor traffic has not been ex-
hausted IN devisiEg schemes to evade
the law against selling "directly or
indirectly" as experience has shown.
It IS wholly unreasonable to sup
pose that the law makers intended to
invade the homes of citizens and in
terfere with the courtesy s'of offer
ing glass of wine or beer to guest
at his own table," Certainly he
who charges such ':extreme puritan
ISM on the people of Missouri,
"mistakes the feelings and opinions
of our people. I" A slmilar provis-
ion in the liquor laws of Illinois has
had the construction. of the supreme
Court of that state jim the case of
State VS.. Albrecht, decided at the
Sept. term 1876, Sec. 6. Chap. 43,
Title, "dramshop," r. S. Ills, 1874.
p 438. provides that whoever, by
himself or his agent shall sell or
give Intoxicating liquor to any minor
without the written order of his par
ent, guardian or family physician,
or to any person intoxicated or in
the habit Of getting intoxicated shall
for each offense be fined.
Notice the prohibition against sell
ing to any person intoxicated.
Albrecht was the owner and operator
of brewery, He kept no dram
shop, nor did he sell beer or any
other liquors in small quantities to
be drank on his premises. One day
in the month of July, while he was
sick at his house apart from his brew
cry, some gentlemen came to see
him on business. Among them a
man by the name of Dewey, who
was intoxicated when he came.
While the business was being trans
acted Albrecht sent out to his brew
cry for some beer, which was brought
and set on his table and all were in
vlted to drink. Dewey drank with
the others. A few days afterwards
AIbrecht was indicted and convicted
for giving liquor to Dewey, who was
intoxicated. On appeal to the SUI
preme court, the judgment was re-
yersed. Justice Breese in deliver
ing the opinion of the court said,
"SurelY it was not such an act as
this the statute was intended to
punish. 1t has nothing OF the odor
of dram shop about 1t. and was
but mere courtesy, which this law
was not designed to reach. If one in
vites his friends to dine with him, and
generous VINE which cheers the heart
Is pressed upon the guests, one of
whom happened to be excited with
wine when he came there, is the
host to be incarcerated for giving TO
this most blhulous guest an addition
al glass? We do not think the stat
ute should bear any such construc-
ton. Would it be held an offense.
punishable by fine and Imprisonment,
should the vlntner from his wine
press fill fiagon and serve it to his
guest in his own house, at his own
table? Where is the difference in a
brewer presenting tankard under
similar circumstances? We cannot
believe this law was designed to pun
ish such acts. .
The prohibition against giving
liquor to any intoxicated person
might reasonably have been applied
under the Illinois law to any person,
at any place, yet the court says that
where it was mere courtesy, the
law does not apply.
And such is the construction to be
placed upon the words ''give away"
in the sixth section of the Wood To-
cal option law. G. HAMMOND.
Give Them Chance I
That IS to say, your lungs. Also